wvuraiders 10 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 http://cfn.scout.com/2/862397.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluefield_Rules 46 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Ole Miss, SEC champion? R-I-G-H-T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Ole Miss, SEC champion? R-I-G-H-T. I know you can spell, but can you read? Go back and reread the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefieldRocks 14 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Ole Miss, SEC champion? R-I-G-H-T. "Assuming the SEC champion is No. 1 and off to the national championship, the Sugar Bowl will get the first choice of teams and it'll most certainly take the second best SEC team." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 "Assuming the SEC champion is No. 1 and off to the national championship, the Sugar Bowl will get the first choice of teams and it'll most certainly take the second best SEC team." True. But Ole Miss is going to be really good this year. People shouldn't knock them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 No they shouldnt knock them. And this article puts them where they should, and may be, the 2nd best team in the SEC. It wasnt a fluke they beat UF, and Snead may get some votes in the Heisman, and may be your #1 pick in the draft, pending on who gets the pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longhornpanther 10 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I think Sneade did the best thing when he transferred from Texas to Ole miss because the only playing time he would have seen was that if McCoy went down with a injury......and playing in the SEC is just preparing him for the NFL and he very well could be a round one pick......and if Ole Miss's defense plays as well as they did last year then they could make a BCS bowl game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefieldRocks 14 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 No they shouldnt knock them. And this article puts them where they should, and may be, the 2nd best team in the SEC. It wasnt a fluke they beat UF, and Snead may get some votes in the Heisman, and may be your #1 pick in the draft, pending on who gets the pick. I'm going to say it's the Detroit Lions again haha Yep, I have 0% faith in them this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vthokies4life 10 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 *Yawn*. USC and Florida have been around too much lately. I'm getting kinda tired of each of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I think Sneade did the best thing when he transferred from Texas to Ole miss because the only playing time he would have seen was that if McCoy went down with a injury......and playing in the SEC is just preparing him for the NFL and he very well could be a round one pick......and if Ole Miss's defense plays as well as they did last year then they could make a BCS bowl game I think if it wasnt for Colt having a year of exp. on Snead, it would be a toss up for who would be the starter. I truly believe that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefieldRocks 14 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 *Yawn*. USC and Florida have been around too much lately. I'm getting kinda tired of each of them. USC does the same thing every year Start off #1 or #2 in the country. Move up to #1 as they destroy everbody, then halfway thru the season they get beat by a .500 team and then they win out and complain about not getting into the title game, then slaughter whoever they play in the rose bowl. Then the cycle starts all over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longhornpanther 10 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I think if it wasnt for Colt having a year of exp. on Snead, it would be a toss up for who would be the starter. I truly believe that. i like Snead's size more than i like Colt's.....i may be wrong but i think Snead is taller than Colt and will be a better fit for a QB in the NFL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawgs05 10 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 USC does the same thing every year Start off #1 or #2 in the country. Move up to #1 as they destroy everbody, then halfway thru the season they get beat by a .500 team and then they win out and complain about not getting into the title game, then slaughter whoever they play in the rose bowl. Then the cycle starts all over again. Wish the Rose Bowl would drop their allegiance to the Big 10.....neither of their top two teams have been able to stack up to the nation's elite lately.....at least 5 or 6 years now. Maybe Congress will come thru and force a playoff...32 team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JJBrickface Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Wish the Rose Bowl would drop their allegiance to the Big 10.....neither of their top two teams have been able to stack up to the nation's elite lately.....at least 5 or 6 years now. Maybe Congress will come thru and force a playoff...32 team Maybe Congress will do their jobs and stay out of NCAA football and fix other problems like ohhhh homeland security and the economy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefieldRocks 14 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I agree JJ They dont need to worry about a college sport. They need to worry about our countries problems... idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) Maybe Congress will do their jobs and stay out of NCAA football and fix other problems like ohhhh homeland security and the economy? Guys, as much as you don't want to hear it, and as much as I'll get flamed for saying it, this IS Congress's job. Either Congress's, or the judiciary. Congress is MUCH quicker, and our court systems are already oppressively overtaxed. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to exclusive power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". This is the basis for the Commerce Clause, what gives Congress the power to enact legislation affecting interstate commerce. There is also a judicial doctrine called the Dormant Commerce Clause, which is virtually the negative converse of this: a restriction prohibiting states from passing legislation which improperly burdens or discriminates against the citizens of a given state. Here is a flow chart I've found useful for Dormant Commerce Clause concerns: Question 1. Does the provision at issue treat people (or entities) residing (or located) outside a particular area differently from the way it treats similarly situated people (or entities) residing (or located) inside that area? If so, it discriminates against interstate commerce "on its face" and is subject to the "strictest scrutiny," Hughes v. Oklahoma. Go to Question 7. If not, go to Question 2. Question 2. Does the provision prevent people from entering or leaving a particular area, or prevent them from bringing something into or out of a particular area? If so, it discriminates against interstate commerce "on its face" and is subject to the "strictest scrutiny," Hughes v. Oklahoma. Go to Question 7. If not, go to Question 3. Question 3. Does the provision prevent people from entering or leaving a particular area, or prevent them from bringing something into or out of a particular area, unless a condition is fulfilled? If so, the law discriminates against interstate commerce "on its face" and is subject to the "strictest scrutiny," Hughes v. Oklahoma. Go to Question 7. If not, go to Question 4. Question 4. In light of economic reality, does the provision almost invariably affect people (or entities) residing (or located) outside a particular area differently from the way it affects similarly situated people (or entities) residing (or located) inside that area? If so, the law discriminates against interstate commerce "in practical effect" and is subject to the "strictest scrutiny," Hughes v. Oklahoma. Go to Question 7. If not, go to Question 5. Question 5. Does the provision "regulate evenhandedly with only 'incidental' effects on interstate commerce"? Hughes v. Oklahoma. If so, go to Question 6. If not, the law does not implicate the Dormant Commerce Clause (assuming the answer to Questions 1-4 was also "no"). Question 6. Does the negative impact of the provision on interstate commerce clearly exceed its value in terms of the police power (that is, its value in promoting the health, welfare, safety, and morals of the population)? If so, the law violates the Constitution. If not, the law is constitutional. (Note: In theory, a court could ask at this point if the government has a reasonable non-discriminatory alternative, but the Court has never based a decision on this issue when applying the Dormant Commerce Clause in this context.) Question 7. Does the provision serve a "legitimate local purpose"? Hughes v. Oklahoma. If not, it violates the Constitution. If so, go to Question 8. (Remember that economic protectionism for its own sake is not a legitimate local purpose.) Question 8. Does the government have a reasonable non-discriminatory alternative? If so, the law violates the Constitution. If not, the law is constitutional. In short, YES to Question #4, NO to Question #7 = unconstitutional And I've not even touched antitrust. You might want to refrain from slinging names like "idiots", especially when it's definitely in their domain and entirely constitutional to do such things... Edited May 8, 2009 by UVAObserver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.